If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The DA's - he requested to drop charges - meaning they were already charged.

Edit: double checked the article - at the very bottom, Rollins herself says these guys were already arraigned. The decision to prosecute had already been made.

The court has every right to deny the petition - courts are NOT rubber stamps - and once arraigned, the decision belongs to the court.

If there's any basis for this in the constitution or case law, y'all are going to have to find it. Barring some showing of corruption or negligence, the judge has no authority to compel the State to pursue charges.

--Sam

"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell

A total of 36 people were arrested during the parade Saturday. According to Rollins’s office, prosecutors are pressing forward in the cases in which the charges are violent in nature, including assault and battery on a police officer. However, 20 of the people arrested were charged only with disorderly conduct alone or disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. And in those cases, prosecutors have been asking Sinnott to drop the charges, according to the DA’s office.

Great to see just how readily some folks here are ready to put on the jackboots, tho.

--Sam

That's a bit over the top, Sam. It's an odd case, but there's usually more than meets the eye.

Meanwhile, Mayor Martin Walsh on Wednesday said he’s backing the judges, revealing a split with Rollins.

“I think the judge, the courts should take those cases on,” Walsh said. “They should go through the court system.”

Also Wednesday, City Councilor At-Large Michelle Wu took to Twitter, saying she watched videos of police interactions with protesters Saturday and felt police acted professionally.

“Our law enforcement officers face an incredibly difficult job everyday,” Wu tweeted. “The vast majority of officers in the videos showed restraint, from what I could tell. The City should look into the usage of pepper spray — the short videos don’t show provocation & also don’t give all context.”

I'm still looking for more details on this, but it appears the judge is being unduly activist...

He even held in contempt an attorney for arguing case law.

On Wednesday, Judge Richard Sinnott refused to accept the Commonwealth's request not to prosecute a defendant in one case and held their attorney in contempt of court for arguing case law in support of the state's position. Attorney Susan Church was handcuffed and sat in a jail cell for hours.

"I was just released after being unlawfully, unreasonably and, honestly, outrageously arrested for simply doing my job," Church said after she was released.

“The actions of Judge Richard Sinnott are unprecedented and outrageous," Rollins said in a statement released Wednesday night. "His insistence on arraigning individuals when my office has used its discretion to decline a case is an unconstitutional abuse of his power and serves neither the interests of justice nor public safety."

“The power to pursue prosecution falls exclusively on the executive branch, not the judiciary. The judge overstepped his authority here, and only an action of our state's highest court can correct this injustice. My petition is a call for order to be returned to our courts, to ensure the fair administration of justice, and to restore the public's trust in the integrity of our legal system. The people of Suffolk County elected me to do exactly what I am doing.”

I honestly don't think it's very far from the worst kinds of authoritarianism when people are encouraging the prosecution of non-violent protesters over the decision of constitutionally and duly elected officials. It's an explicit abrogation of the rule of law. Once you start violating constitutional powers of prosecution and move judges from arbiters of fact to co-prosecutors, it's downhill and downhill quick.

--Sam

Originally Posted by Cow Poke

That's a bit over the top, Sam. It's an odd case, but there's usually more than meets the eye.

Meanwhile, Mayor Martin Walsh on Wednesday said he’s backing the judges, revealing a split with Rollins.

“I think the judge, the courts should take those cases on,” Walsh said. “They should go through the court system.”

Also Wednesday, City Councilor At-Large Michelle Wu took to Twitter, saying she watched videos of police interactions with protesters Saturday and felt police acted professionally.

“Our law enforcement officers face an incredibly difficult job everyday,” Wu tweeted. “The vast majority of officers in the videos showed restraint, from what I could tell. The City should look into the usage of pepper spray — the short videos don’t show provocation & also don’t give all context.”

OK, I figured there had to be more to the story than meets the eye, and, apparently, this battle has been going on for some time. The current situation is just one more event.

Rollins had apparently campaigned on a social justice platform, of sorts, and was elected on that basis - that she would not prosecute certain crimes. That is, indeed, problematic.

Elected as Suffolk County’s first female district attorney last year, Rollins has garnered national attention for her progressive criminal justice platform, including a list of 15 petty crimes for which her office’s default stance is to not prosecute. Both disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, as a standalone charge or in combination with another charge on the list, are among the nonviolent offenses on the list.

While accusing the judge of abusing his office, she appears to have thrown the first stone in making herself the judge of which crimes will not be prosecuted. That's different than deciding which defendants should not be prosecuted for crimes. Like any civil servant, she would have taken an oath to do her job.

I believe the oath of office for that job is "“I, ___________, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as Suffolk County District Attorney, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably, to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, and the laws of this Commonwealth, so help me God,”

That does not include pre-deciding which crimes will not be prosecuted - the authority to codify crimes lies elsewhere.

I honestly don't think it's very far from the worst kinds of authoritarianism when people are encouraging the prosecution of non-violent protesters over the decision of constitutionally and duly elected officials. It's an explicit abrogation of the rule of law. Once you start violating constitutional powers of prosecution and move judges from arbiters of fact to co-prosecutors, it's downhill and downhill quick.

--Sam

Just out of curiosity, and in no way argumentative, why are you the only poster who speaks first, then quotes the other person?

I honestly don't think it's very far from the worst kinds of authoritarianism when people are encouraging the prosecution of non-violent protesters over the decision of constitutionally and duly elected officials. It's an explicit abrogation of the rule of law. Once you start violating constitutional powers of prosecution and move judges from arbiters of fact to co-prosecutors, it's downhill and downhill quick.

--Sam

Apparently this is a small battle in a bigger war - the DA appears to be acting as a social justice warrior more so than an officer of the court. Not excusing the judge's actions at all - just sensed there was more to this than "bad judge!!!".

OK, I figured there had to be more to the story than meets the eye, and, apparently, this battle has been going on for some time. The current situation is just one more event.

Rollins had apparently campaigned on a social justice platform, of sorts, and was elected on that basis - that she would not prosecute certain crimes. That is, indeed, problematic.

Elected as Suffolk County’s first female district attorney last year, Rollins has garnered national attention for her progressive criminal justice platform, including a list of 15 petty crimes for which her office’s default stance is to not prosecute. Both disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, as a standalone charge or in combination with another charge on the list, are among the nonviolent offenses on the list.

While accusing the judge of abusing his office, she appears to have thrown the first stone in making herself the judge of which crimes will not be prosecuted. That's different than deciding which defendants should not be prosecuted for crimes. Like any civil servant, she would have taken an oath to do her job.

I believe the oath of office for that job is "“I, ___________, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as Suffolk County District Attorney, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably, to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, and the laws of this Commonwealth, so help me God,”

That does not include pre-deciding which crimes will not be prosecuted - the authority to codify crimes lies elsewhere.

Prosecutorial discretion has a fairly long history and is an important aspect in the balance of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch. And how a law is applied for the public interest is reserved for the executive branch.

It's no different, in theory, than a police officer's decision to not pull over every person who drives 5 mph over the speed limit.

--Sam

"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"